We can probably surmise, with so much attention paid to Rob's goal of getting the girl and the money, that at some point before this ends either Rob or Amber will be placed in a position to make a potentially life altering decision. If this doesn't happen in the F2 choice, perhaps it happens in New York during the final show.

If one of Survivor's two basic rules is that you 'can't share the money,' it is conceivable the producers could do a Joe Millionaire on us and force either Amber or Rob (should one be declared the winner) to make a choice between ending their marriage plans or losing the million.

Granted this would never hold up in a court of law, but it might make for an interesting moment if confronted with that choice on live TV. )

Caveman

• RE: Big Surprise may be a test of love,nailbone, 04:04 PM, 05-07-04
  • RE: Big Surprise may be a test of love,Luvmygreeneyes, 04:33 PM, 05-07-04
    • RE: Big Surprise may be a test of love,nailbone, 04:38 PM, 05-07-04
• RE: Big Surprise may be a test of love,Pensha26, 04:18 PM, 05-07-04
  • RE: Big Surprise may be a test of love,nailbone, 04:21 PM, 05-07-04
• RE: Big Surprise may be a test of love,Loquatrix, 05:35 PM, 05-07-04
• RE: Big Surprise may be a test of love,Estee, 06:01 PM, 05-07-04

And that'd go along with the Probst statement referenced elsewhere about the rule that they're not supposed to be together or talk prior to the Finale.

Did anyone happen to notice when Amber was talking about winning the money she kept on using the word "we". It almost made it sound like her and Rob were conspiring on how "they" could win the money. It led me to think of the rule that says that two players can not conspire with each other to win the money (ie:I'll help you win and you split it with me). To me her making these statements before the end of the show possibly shows that there was forethought in the planning and spending of the million between the two. I wonder if there is a contingency clause in the contract-? If not there should be!

As I understand it, there is such a clause, but i also know that Tina gave Colby some of her money to pay bills and buy a motorcycle or something.

Cool new sig courtesy of Jslice o-

Jeff stated on "the View" that the surprise had nothing to do with Romber.

Oh yeah, I do remember reading that.

I think it's gonna be about gameplay and the "rules", like a change in voting or something like that.

Cool new sig courtesy of Jslice o-

The rules about "conspiring to share the money" have been pretty thoroughly discussed in another thread, but what it comes down to is this: Two people "conspiring" to get themselves to the final 2 cannot be against the rules under any circumstances (even if they talk about spending the money together) because the very nature of the game is to do whatever is necessary to get yourself to the final 2.

Issues of "conspiracy" would only come to the fore if, for example, one individual agreed to be voted out of the game in order for his co-conspirator(s) to get closer to the prize they had agreed to share.

The point about the "anti-conspiracy" rule is to ensure that normal competitive gameplay takes place. It is not to prevent conspiracies from taking place, because conspiracy (also known as "alliance") is the basis of the game. The rule is there to ensure that individuals aren't subverting normal competitive gameplay by doing something like letting themselves be targetted, or throwing individual immunity challenges, in return for a promise of a share in the winnings.

Otherwise, banding together in the way our current Final 4 have banded together could be construed as "conspiring to share the winnings." In effect, that's exactly what Rob, Rupert, Jenna and Amber have done -- they have conspired to assure each other of a share of the top four places' prize money. (The fact that they haven't agreed that it would be an EQUAL share of the combined top four places' prize money is immaterial for the purposes of this discussion.) If the rule was simply about "conspiracy," then all four of them would be guilty -- and there would be no game of Survivor.

Clearly, the rule about conspiring to share the money addresses situations in which a competitor knowingly undermines his own game in favour of some other player's game in furtherance of a plan to share whatever winnings the latter may receive. This is nothing like what Rob and Amber are doing -- they are simply a proactive alliance, each actively pursuing the money by sticking together safety in numbers and individually seeking to win the game.

Now, if Jenna wins F3 immunity, and Rob and Amber agree between themselves to persuade Jenna to vote out Rob and take Amber to F2, because they think Amber has a better chance of beating Jenna than Rob does, THEN they would be sailing close to the "conspiring to share the winnings" rule. But as long as everyone keeps playing hard and trying to win the game themselves, rather than agreeing to lose it with a view to sharing the winnings, there's no trouble for anybody.

I know Jiffie's said the big surprise has nothing to do with Romber, but the image of their having to forfeit any winnings for having broken post-filming contact rules is just too good to pass up.

It'll never happen, though. After spending so much time showcasing the romance, Burnett is not going to make himself into the biggest villain in the history of Thursday nights by shoving a million-dollar twist into the dance.